Our basic collective navigating framework is Kegan-5 / fluid mode / post-rational, rather than Kegan-4 / systematic mode / rational (good summary of this distinction)
How do you filter for people who are Kegan-5 when you are seeking to accept members?
We don’t! Each of the individual members themselves aren’t necessarily Kegan-5, but the person spearheading the project (who is in her 70s) certainly is. And so, therefore, are our models, our equivalent to a “charter”, etc.
It’s also the case that the mode of interaction that we’re training here is fluid as opposed to systematic, which shows up in the ways that we make agreements, commitments, and the general way-we-do-things-here. I was very much operating in (and committed to!) systematic mode when I first joined several years ago, and I’m still getting comfortable with this. It’s challenging but worth it, and we’re working to build a bridge to meta-rationality to make that learning process easier.
I think that Duncan’s intended context will potentially be (a) an awesome place to go from Kegan-3 to Kegan-4, and (b) an awesome place to operate in an exceedingly high-functioning Kegan-4 way. It asks that of its members. I don’t expect it to create a demand for most Dragons to operate in a Kegan-5 way, which is the core different between it and the project I’m a part of.
Not officially at this stage; we’re in a process of overhauling a lot of things, including answers to questions like “who are we?” and “what are we calling ourselves?”
That said, this category of posts on my blog has a lot of content about our philosophy, models, culture, etc.
How do you filter for people who are Kegan-5 when you are seeking to accept members?
We don’t! Each of the individual members themselves aren’t necessarily Kegan-5, but the person spearheading the project (who is in her 70s) certainly is. And so, therefore, are our models, our equivalent to a “charter”, etc.
It’s also the case that the mode of interaction that we’re training here is fluid as opposed to systematic, which shows up in the ways that we make agreements, commitments, and the general way-we-do-things-here. I was very much operating in (and committed to!) systematic mode when I first joined several years ago, and I’m still getting comfortable with this. It’s challenging but worth it, and we’re working to build a bridge to meta-rationality to make that learning process easier.
I think that Duncan’s intended context will potentially be (a) an awesome place to go from Kegan-3 to Kegan-4, and (b) an awesome place to operate in an exceedingly high-functioning Kegan-4 way. It asks that of its members. I don’t expect it to create a demand for most Dragons to operate in a Kegan-5 way, which is the core different between it and the project I’m a part of.
Is there more information available on your project publically? Or some information I can get non-publically?
Not officially at this stage; we’re in a process of overhauling a lot of things, including answers to questions like “who are we?” and “what are we calling ourselves?”
That said, this category of posts on my blog has a lot of content about our philosophy, models, culture, etc.